Search form

You are here

I consider myself a roleplayer and would honestly be completely fine without any dice being rolled in an entire session. So I just want to throw my two cents out there and point out the ONE thing that I really want out of any edition that I play. The ability to play any race/class combination that exists. Which would of course include any monsters.

So all I'm asking is that it's easy to convert any monster race into a playable character from whatever bestiary that is created. Do that, make a game that people enjoy and want to play by ending these silly edition wars and I'm good to go. After all, roleplay is systemless.

Thanks for stopping by and reading and/or adding your own opion to the thread.

The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.
Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa.
...[aside]...
Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.
Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

Well, this generally isn't very feasable in D&D. While you can make everything playable like 3E, there are going to be a ton of balance issues.

The problem is that most monster races basically need their own class and advancement, because adding class levels to most monsters just doesn't make much sense. While a giant fighter can work, what do you add to a medusa or a beholder?

Um... lets see. They min/max the monsters to be most effective against the players who also min/max. You act like min/maxing is somehow inherently wrong. I reject that assertion. What character in game role playing would not want to be the most effective. They are literally going to work toward being the most effective. So min/maxing IS role playing...

"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika

The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.
Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa.
...[aside]...
Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.
Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

That's easy. Design your adventures when playing with casual players the same way you design your adventures when playing with veteran optimizers. You're going to crush the casual players. In some of my 3rd edition games, the best my players could do was fighting EL - 4 encounters!

I played with a DM who would hear our plans for the coming battle, and then arrange the DM forces based on our battle plans, even though the hostiles had no way of knowing what we were doing. I don't know if he did it deliberately or unconsciously, but we took to planning where he couldn't hear us.

I think a Monstrous PC Handbook would be a great supplement. In the module-design that the developers have discussed, a gaming group who chooses to allow monstrous PCs will simply opt-in to the Monstrous PC module. Since it is likely that any attempt to make monstrous PCs is going to be problematic (how do you balance the treant, minotaur, gold dragon, and djinni all being in the same party), best to have a supplement for it to try to fleshout all the issues, and to make it easy for other groups to avoid the problem altogether.

Its not only important as a player tools... its important as a DM tool.

As a DM i may (just may) need to make a (for instance) a 5th level wizard, Half-fiend Orc (vampire).

So to me, its important that all monsters have the ability to be customized as such... so I need things like racial traits for an orc, templates for half-fiends, vampires and so on.

Albeit, the mechanism behind this doesn't have to be like 3E at all, certainly NPC creation in 3E was a bit of nightmare... however, it should be theoritically possible for a DM to make any monster/class combination to his heart's content, and it should be supported in the rules.

A few guidelines for using the internet:
1. Mentally add "In my opinion" to the end of basically anything someone else says. Of course it's their opinion, they don't need to let you know. You're pretty smart.
2. Assume everyone means everything in the best manner they could mean it. Save yourself some stress and give people the benefit of the doubt. We'll all be happier if we type less emoticons.
3. Don't try to read people's minds. Sometimes people mean exactly what they say. You probably don't know them any better than they know themselves.
4. Let grammar slide. If you understood what they meant, you're good. It's better for your health.
5. Breath. It's just a dumb game.

I would not say EVERYTHING should be playable. Creatures that are so unintelligent as to operate purely on instinct, creatures that cannot communicate, creatures that cannot manipulate things ... I would consider these off-limits, because they would be a colossal pain in the butt at the table for the DM and the player.

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

Anyone can try and deliberately warp the rules to the end that the fun of the group is spoiled. Take note, munchkins and power gamers are a completely different breed. One is perfectly fine. The other should be rounded up and shot in the face.

My grey ooze paladin agrees

I once made a gelatonous cube with monk levels. Players find them a whole lot scarrier when they move 45 feet a round! MUAHAHAHAHA!

I just got this hilarious cartoony image of large clear gel-cube come zipping past a wide-screen camera shot, zoom sound and smoke trail and all.

And about all races being playable, if that's the case, then I want to play a cross-breed between a Leshay and a Timelord with atavistic celestial, fiendish, fey, and draconic genes.

The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.
Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa.
...[aside]...
Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.
Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

I would not say EVERYTHING should be playable. Creatures that are so unintelligent as to operate purely on instinct, creatures that cannot communicate, creatures that cannot manipulate things ... I would consider these off-limits, because they would be a colossal pain in the butt at the table for the DM and the player.

I agree that a Savage Species type deal for 5th Ed would be great, start as a 1st level treant, and grow and grow until you branch out into monk or what-have-you.

This has the roots of a great sub-system. You could use it for Giants, Dragons, etc...

Personally, I would very much like to play a Treant.

So, one of the first steps is nailing down multi-classing.

The whole CL/ECL/LA thing can get seriously messy.

I think a system/chart(s), where you scale down all of the racial traits of a powerful and vaguely humanoid creature, to PC level 1 equivalent, would be cool. You would gain racial levels until you are "fully grown" or what not, at which point you would select a class? I suppose you could mix class levels with your racial ones (with your race being your "1st class") instead.

heh savage species was cool, but the way we dealt with it was we tacked on the racials to be gained at intervals as they levelled a class. It was too powerful that way but it didn't come up a lot and it wasn't so locked down that weird races were totally locked into a few roles.

Ogre mages are a particularly glaring example of a savage species race that just sucked in execution. Easily the worst mages I've ever set eyes on, even if it's written on the tin. Still, the idea was there.

I agree that a Savage Species type deal for 5th Ed would be great, start as a 1st level treant, and grow and grow until you branch out into monk or what-have-you.

This has the roots of a great sub-system. You could use it for Giants, Dragons, etc...

Personally, I would very much like to play a Treant.

So, one of the first steps is nailing down multi-classing.

The whole CL/ECL/LA thing can get seriously messy.

I think a system/chart(s), where you scale down all of the racial traits of a powerful and vaguely humanoid creature, to PC level 1 equivalent, would be cool. You would gain racial levels until you are "fully grown" or what not, at which point you would select a class? I suppose you could mix class levels with your racial ones (with your race being your "1st class") instead.

So a treant would be a 7 level class (7HD), so you might start out as a smaller size, and gain Strength/size, etc, as you gain levels/HD; but should you have to complete the 7 levels before branching out (as it were) to another class?

The Basic D&D accessory Tall Tales of the Wee Folk (before Savage Species) has some good ideas on this.

"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose

Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke

A lazylord who points out enemies at the start of the fight, drags on enemy legs so giving allies openings and generally harrasses enemies and acting like a proper wolf where the other heros are alphas? licks allies faces to wake them when they fall down?

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

I played with a DM who would hear our plans for the coming battle, and then arrange the DM forces based on our battle plans, even though the hostiles had no way of knowing what we were doing. I don't know if he did it deliberately or unconsciously, but we took to planning where he couldn't hear us.

That's a pretty big pet peeve of mind. that is why I always notated in short form my battle plans before the encounter. That way if my players wanted to challenge me on it they knew I didn't respond to their plans in the opening rounds. If the PC's were the aggressors that is an entirely different matter. It is hard to develop the trust of the players if their planning means nothing.

CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production.
D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!

Wow, defensiveness here... sorry. I mean Character Actor, not role-player. It's okay folks... we all role-play, just in different ways. Heh.

I guess it's obvious that Savage Species was indeed my favorite suplement from 3.x and I miss it from 4th edition. Sure, they keep adding races via Dragon and such but the big issue is I don't have a lot of folks who want to play 4e and therein lies the basis for my request to the designers. Something we can all play is the goal, yes? Keep us actors who love to play Lizardfolk, etc in mind. Yes, even the folks who will play oozes because their DMs will not say no and that group will have a rip-roaring good time cheering when the ooze desolves the badguy who didn't see it coming. Yes, this game is about fun and if that table wants it then I say have at it. No judgements.

As to the mention of destroying players... As a DM I honestly have never understood why it is that DMs love destroying player characters in that way. That would drive me insane. Death has its place in the game certainly, and I suppose if your group likes that sort of thing... but if you're playing with some casuals who are there not to be put through the ropes but instead to have a 'casual' experience, why aren't you adapting? I've wiped parties... but only when it comes to DMing a hardcore group. Isn't it our jobs as the DMs to referee and give the players what they want to an extent? (This is so going to turn into an off-topic tangent...)

In other news: The suplemental PC monster race suplement with different rules for the game? Unless they have that in mind AS they are designing the core game, that might get sticky. I could see races getting very, very odd in that case and DMs getting as frustrated with that book as they did with the psion book and deciding if psionics and magic were the same thing or not from 3rd....... Does anyone remember that nightmare?

However a supliment which allows you to break down any monster into a level 1 to level max with monster levels and benefits for actually being a monstrous adventurer, I'm all for. I'd like it to give a variety... Something specific to a race such as a mind flayer being psionic styled as it levels... or becoming a warrior sort. I agree that just adding classes can seem a little... odd.

Of course, you COULD create a suplement which renders every monstrous race level 1 and you simply add a favored class to it. The mind flayer example used again could be a favored psion after all.... If you can preserve the theme of the monstrous race in doing so then I see no harm in it.